Seven Reasons Why Google Is Making A Mistake In Filtering Searches Based On DMCA Notices

from the the-wrong-calculation dept

I've been thinking some more about Google's announcement last week that it will be filtering searches based on how many DMCA notices a site gets. Google insists that this shouldn't hurt "legitimate" sites, because the DMCA notices are only a one factor in determining how a site gets listed (and, thus, it says that sites that get a ton of DMCA notices, like Facebook, IMDB, Tumblr, Twitter and Youtube shouldn't be impacted). However, there are a few reasons why I think Google has made a mistake here.

This is the first change to Google's rankings that isn't in the best interest of its users. Google has argued that these new changes will actually benefit users by pointing them to "better" results. That argument is effectively that sites that they are demoting in the rankings are akin to "spam" sites. But there's a very big difference here. Spam sites tend to be sites that the person doing the searching doesn't want and which clutter up the results. For content searches, the searches that Google will be demoting actually might be the ones that the consumer does want. Google has always been pretty religious about making sure the search results best matched what the searcher was, in fact, looking for. But it's now changing that policy. That seems like a dangerous step down a potentially very slippery slope.

Admitting that it's willing to cave to the interests of businesses, rather than users, will lead to more such demands. Already, we've seen companies complain about how Google rankings work -- and Google could always point to the fact that it determined how to rank its results based on what was best for users. But that's no longer the case, as others can point to Google caving in this one instance. Expect other industries to start asking for special treatment here, too. Google can fend these requests off, but it's going to start to get a lot of them.

It's never enough. The industry will always want more: As we've already discussed, the MPAA and RIAA aren't satisfied with this move, and will continue to pressure Google to do even more. Opening the door here won't mean that they'll suddenly be satisfied. It's just going to convince them to keep up what they'd been doing in the past: complaining to anyone and everyone that Google doesn't do enough.

Google's defense in anti-trust cases just got that much more difficult: Google has always argued in the antitrust efforts against them, that the ratings results are the best for users, not for any particular business. But this new effort will be pointed out time and time again to show that's not always the case, as those on the other side of antitrust fights will start asking why the RIAA and MPAA get special treatment, but others can't.

This will harm new innovations: As we noted above, Google claims this shouldn't hurt YouTube. But, imagine if Google had this in place years back, when YouTube was first starting out. It gets a bunch of DMCA notices early on, Google "filters" it down, and YouTube never becomes "YouTube" -- one of the most important tools that many artists today use for promoting, distributing and monetizing their works. Did it have lots of infringement early on? Hell yes. Did it develop new tools that tons of artists now find so valuable that they rely on them every day? Yes. Would that have happened if Google had demoted them early on? Probably not.

This may hold back other search engines: This one Google might not mind. As the entertainment industry has done with things like Content ID, it will now argue that all other search engines, by default, should do the same thing -- even though most of them may not have the tools or the DMCA data to make this work effectively. In doing this, Google may end up burdening other search engines -- especially upstarts -- in the space. Google may not mind this, but historically Google has at least been a reasonably good neighbor in not actively trying to undermine competing search engines.

This won't hold back infringement. At all. The underlying rationale for this is that the RIAA and MPAA think that people searching for content online are too stupid to realize the difference between a paid link and a free link. They think that if someone does a search on the name of a movie along with "free online," that if they're shown an authorized fee-based offer, they're willing to pay for it. There's little evidence to support that. The people doing such searches know exactly what they're looking for. The real problem is not that Google is showing it to them, it's that the traditional entertainment industry players aren't providing users what they want.

The end result of all of this is that this move seems likely to hurt everyone and help no one. It makes the entertainment industry marginally happier than they were, though still not satisfied. And, historically, when the entertainment industry gets what it wants, it usually means that what it needs to actually help it move forward gets pushed further away. That seems likely here as well.

The problem is that MPAA / RIAA are so intrenched in their beliefs no matter what real statics show and every single time someone gives just a little bit to shut them the fuck up they use that to force others to give them a little more, then return to the first guy and go 'give us more'.

Fuck'em. If they can't change their antiquated business models let them die off. Music and story telling existed for thousands of years before and will exist long after these archaic business models finally fails.

Re:

Re:

I just...what is wrong with you? You accuse Mike of being in cahoots with Google, of Google paying him and each and every time he's proven that to be false...it still doesn't connect with you? Now we have, as far as I can see, three articles in the first 13 days of August alone that are critical of Google...and you still say he's being paid by Google?

Re: Re:

Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

You immediately jump to the conclusion that every user wants their results filled with crappy pirate sites. Wrong. I can't stand them. I want to go to legit places that let me pay my fair share for the content. Google is doing people like me a favor by filtering out all of the pirate sites that you reflexively love. Don't ask me why.

So face it: this is very much what many users want. Maybe not the cheap jerks around here who profess an abstract desire to maybe someday pay something for content, but repeatedly embrace the torrent world. Maybe not the loons who believe that everything must be given away. But the rest of us who remember how well communism worked.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

bob, when did your interests become the interests of the majority of people?
Also, again, you completely ignore the fact the legit places are CRAP. Complete and utter Crap. I have already stated why in the other article about the RIAA not being happy.

For a legit movie site to earn my money, it has to be more than just legitimate. It has to do things better than the "crappy pirate sites". The reason I don't bother with Netflix is that the video player it offers is crap, its streaming only (no permanent copies on my hard drive) and it has a tiny library. Simply being a legitimate site is not enough.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

Wrong !
I do not want Google to cave into the MAFIAA.I do not care what those studios put out and I am not a Pirate.Their content does not interest me but I am interested and more than happy to Buy & Support my local Art Scene as well as the greater INDIE Art Scene of the World.
The sooner I see the Dinosaur Studios die the happier I will be.

it isn't just Google that doesn't do enough, it's everyone. everyone includes the entertainment industries themselves who should be top of the list! i really would like to know exactly what those industries would say if there were a role-reversal, whereby another industry wanted the entertainment industry to do God knows what to help it out but expected that help to be provided at the expense of whatever industry was giving it. i would suggest there would be several 'get fucked' flying about! strange how it's different when the entertainment industries want help. i sincerely hope that Google quickly and deeply regrets the can of worms it has now opened for itself!

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

I'm posting it here because I doubt you're going to back to that article.

"At great cost? It sure works well. Every time I look, it seems like YouTube is full of tons of pirated material.

Once again your lack of knowledge as to what Google actually does is tripping you up bob.

When YouTube's content ID system finds something it recognizes as copyrighted by a known rights holder it pays the rights holder ad revenue, regardless of who uploaded the video.

So even though you see "tons of pirated material" which may have been uploaded without authorization, YouTube is automagically paying the rights holder for those anyways. This is all above and beyond anything legally required of them.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

it could happen

"They think that if someone does a search on the name of a movie along with "free online," that if they're shown an authorized fee-based offer,"

if the fee based offer was reasonable, say a nickle for a single showing, or ~$9 a month for unlimited, oh wait, that is Netflix. The most EVILE of corporations.

But joking aside, if there was a fee based version that was a reasonable cost (~$1 for 24 hours, like redbox, maybe even $1.25 because i don't have to get it or return it) and be able to watch it on any internet connected device, then sure "infringement" would go down. Legal convenience has a better chance against illegally free then Legal Protectionism

This requires business to pull their head out of their collective behinds, so live long and prosper "infringement"

I remember a long while back when the Echelon Spy network was revealed. A common argument for people supporting the government's actions was, "Well if you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about."

The thing is, it was just one small step though much like drops of water in a foundation, they build up and can cause so much damage.

Google's submission to bending over and buttering up their man box is prime example of this. One small step here and there and eventually the consumer will lose control, and we'll be pushed back to web 1.0.

Google's new search mentality

So if I do a search on The Dark Knight Rises Torrent it sends me to Amazon. I can't wait until they roll this out for everything. A search on gay porn sends people to evangelical sites. Searching for ways to cheat on your wife sends you to couples therapy. If I look up Adam Sandler it sends me to the AFI Top 100 movies. Genius!

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

Bob, I searched for "Cars 2 legal download" and received nothing but torrents. Unfortunately, none of the other non-torrent links pointed to a legitimate download of Cars 2. I had to search "cars 2 Itunes" to get to the Itunes download, however I don't own any Apple hardware.

So yeah, users do want to pay for it, but the legitimate option is either not there or not easy to find. Making it available is their responsibility.

If you weren't too busy drooling over your Mike Masnick tiger beat poster, and actually educating yourself, you'd realize how stupid you sound every time you comment on these posts.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

You just don't understand, the relevance of the results is determined by the search requests Google gets.
I am tempted to explain more but you have said repeatedly that you do understand so I will just stop here.

nobody shares your views

Google already caved in the RIAA/MPAA demands, by banning a long list of words from it's Autocomplete feature.

And long ago, Google started removing sites from search results based on unverified --and often ridiculous-- DMCA claims.

Want information on the UFO-space-alien cult Scientology? That's too bad, because Google long ago removed sites that dared to publish the story of Xenu, the inter-galactic overlord that the cult claims copyright over ... and charges adherents a quarter million [tax deductible] dollars to reveal.

For Google, it simply makes good business sense, to avoid the expense of Big Media lawsuits by caving in to censorship demands.

Until the day comes when Google fears equally lawsuits by outraged users, we can only expect Google's censorship to continue to get worse.

Re:

I have said it once

And I will say it again. No industry should ever have to act in the protectionist interests of another, especially if those actions harm their own interests. That is what is happening here because of entertainment industry sense of entitlement.

You know, if the MPAA and RIAA actually knew what the hell they were doing, Google wouldn't HAVE to modify its search rankings. The pirate sites would naturally drop off as more an more people clicked (and shared) links to the legitimate offerings.

Re: Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

I call bullshit bob.

I all but guarantee that if you want to go to legit places to pay your fair share you're not using google to get there. If you've found a legit place that lets you pay your fair share and actually has what you want.. why the fuck would you search google?

I expect google to *find anything* related to my search, rank it by relative and popularity *then* insert their top three ad purchasers. Anything less is manipulating results for someone else. I'm not someone else, bob, I'm me.

Many users want what they're searching for, who the fuck are you or Google or fuck-off-any*AA asshat to tell me what I want?

They will never be satisfied. In the end, they'll say "Just let us do it but you pay for all the work we do". Remember, to the AA's, everyone's a crook. Innocent until proven guilty is only for those schleps in the court system.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

"You immediately jump to the conclusion that every user wants their results filled with crappy pirate sites."

No, bob. The only one jumping to that conclusion is you and a few other ACs who assume we're all thieves and freetards.

"Wrong. I can't stand them."

We know that. But we also all can see and all already know that anything that is presented or done by Google is evil in your eyes or part of some Google orchestrated conspiracy that only you know about, yet can't present any evidence of.

So do a great many people. Unfortunately, do to restrictions put in place by the copyright holders (who are almost never the content creators), that can't and isn't happening. Instead, they're presented with messages like, "Oh, sorry. I see you're from EVERYWHERE BUT THE UNITED STATES. Tough luck. Looks like you can't pay for this content legally, because we aren't selling it to you. Oh well. Try again in a few years, maybe we'll have something for you."

Also, the majority of people who want to go to those places and are allowed to do so already know of those places. Netflix. Amazon. iTunes. Etc. We already know about them. And they're popular enough that even my technologically illiterate mother knows to search "iTunes Weeds" and find episodes of the show (not even sure they're there but that popped into my mind as an example, so I used it).

"Google is doing people like me a favor by filtering out all of the pirate sites that you reflexively love."

No, bob. People like you are obviously looking for something you shouldn't be if all you're finding is pirate sites. Know how I know? I just searched for "dark knight rises". Know what I found? Nothing but legal and legitimate sites listing information on the movie, show times, where to purchase tickets to showings, etc. If you're finding "pirate sites" it's because you want to find them.

bobby, are you searching for content to download without paying for it? Shame, shame, shame.

"Don't ask me why."

Again, we don't need to ask you why. You readily assume that because people have a problem with something that they're all thieves. No explanation needed. It's not at all remotely true or accurate, but that's the world you live in. Where bob knows what we're all doing and thinking and up to. And in this magical world, if we don't think Google is evil and copyright should trump our Constitutionally protected rights then we're thieves.

"So face it: this is very much what many users want."

No, it isn't. Google already ranks results the way users want them. Only two groups want this nonsense the way it's going to be, idiots/conspiracy theorists and the MPAA/RIAA members.

"Maybe not the cheap jerks around here who profess an abstract desire to maybe someday pay something for content, but repeatedly embrace the torrent world."

Ad hom based on no facts. Ignored. Or "citation needed", feel free to present your evidence whenever you have a chance. Otherwise, take back your comment and apologize for making it.

"Maybe not the loons who believe that everything must be given away."

See previous response. Also, the guy who believes everything is a Google orchestrated conspiracy calling others loons. Now that's a laugh/ironic as fuck.

"But the rest of us who remember how well communism worked."

You obviously never knew how Communism worked or why it failed, otherwise you wouldn't make such a statement. I'll give you a hint, I was born after the whole Red scare nonsense. Way after. I was born 5 years before the Berlin wall fell. And even I know that Communism failed not because of "let's give everyone everything" or any such nonsense. I won't bother going into detail on why it DID fail, because such an explanation would be wasted on you. But suffice it to say, yet another sentence from you showing your blatant ignorance of reality and the facts.

In summary, you're an idiot and I believe I accurately responded to each of your "facts". (FYI, you didn't present any, just speculation and opinion based on your nonsense beliefs and spin of reality.)

One Reason Why Google Is Not Making A Mistake

Google TV.

Google is positioning itself to be both a content provider and a content distributor. NOTE: The 'content distributor' link has a shitty signup wall in front of it, but can be read around it if you've the patience. Briefly, the article states Google inked distribution deals with Showtime and Starz to carry their content on their new fiber network.

Why is Google stringing fiber cable in Kansas City? Test marketing.

Funny, it usually takes at least one change of leadership before "Founder's Vision" gets shitcanned.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

Many users perhaps, but not the majority. Unless you're brand new to the www you already know of Amazon, Overstock, Newegg, Tigerdirect, Buy, etc. Spare us the bullshit. Piracy sites only generally pop up if you WANT them to. Use the google shopping filter if you feel your searchs are inadequate.

Re: Re:

Wow, this one is a stinking hot pile. The writing makes me think that you are really upset, and the logic is at best poor.

1 - Google isn't REMOVING results, they are ranking with DMCA notices being one of the influencing factors. If the only reason people like your site is because you have infringing content that is removed by DMCA, then perhaps you aren't the best site for the users. Google also filters out illegal phishing sites. Should they only follow CERTAIN laws?

2 - They are admitting that they will follow the law and common sense, and avoid potential future legal action regarding variations of the red flag knowledge. They also go a long way to keeping themselves away from general liability, they are doing something about DMCA notices beyond just processing single URLs.

3 - That is your interpretation. The Industry people pointed out that now that Google is doing this, they can continue to work harder and do more to stop illegal sites from being the "best" results, and can work harder to do so in the future. The "never enough" is your personal interpretation, not realty.

4 - It's not special treatment for RIAA and MPAA, it's handling all copyright complains from all sources. No anti-trust issues here. You must really be angry. Did you forget authors, software creators, and (eek) even the porn industry? Copyright holders are wide and varied, even if your anger is almost always directed at the **AAs. Your bias is showing here.

5 - Sites who hugely violate copyright to "innovate" aren't innovating at all, sorry. If they innovate without violating other people's rights, then they will rise, not fall. This is perhaps the ultimate red herring here, because you are suggesting that innovation only occurs when they violate copyright. Remember, this isn't wild accusations, this is notice and counter notice. Again, your bias is showing here.

6 - It holds back search engines only in the same way that filtering out child porn does. It may make it marginally harder for those people looking for illegal content to find it via Google. I am not sure that this is any big thing, you keep telling us it's not important, but apparently it's important enough to hold back the search engines? Which is it?

7 - This is the most unclear. If the average citizen can't easily find the pirated goods, maybe they won't pirate. This is especially true if pirate sites are playing domain name whack-a-mole, making it harder for people to find them.

Google is doing what it needs to do in order to avoid long term liability. They are also doing themselves a favor towards their apparent longer term goal to be a content seller / retailers / distributor. They looked at piracy, they looked at their business, they looked at their future, and seem to have realized that the risk of supporting that part of the business isn't worth the rewards.

You need to calm down and think about this one Mike. Stop steaming, when you post like this even your most ardent followers can see you are flailing around.

Re: Re:

thats correct, see most people are capable of determing the value of their time.

yes, we all know that masnick will spend 4 hours searching for a pirated file, and consider it a bargin, when most people will be able to determine that if they actually worked for that 4 hours they would be able to buy that content with money to spare !!!!

clearly masnick does not consider his time to be of any value, otherwise he would not have waisted his life on this web site !!! possibly he was dropped as a child ??

Re:

If the only reason people like your site is because you have infringing content that is removed by DMCA, then perhaps you aren't the best site for the users.

The problem is that having content removed through a DMCA request isn't a great indicator that the content was actually infringing.

This is also a philosophical change for Google. They are now beginning to rank sites based on accusations from other companies, rather than ranking them based on relevance to the search terms. It means that Google's rankings are a little less relevant.

This is the real issue, and the camel's nose in the tent. Once they start deviating from the old philosophy, why would they stop with DMCA notices? What about sites that deal with unsavory subjects? Unpopular religions or political beliefs? Etc.

They also go a long way to keeping themselves away from general liability

I seriously doubt it. Google already goes far beyond what is legally required on them to avoid liability.

The Industry people pointed out that now that Google is doing this, they can continue to work harder and do more to stop illegal sites from being the "best" results

There is a very large difference between what the industry claims are illegal sites and what are actually illegal sites.

It's not special treatment for RIAA and MPAA, it's handling all copyright complains from all sources.

This is disingenuous. This is all about RIAA and MPAA. Not all copyright holders agree with this stuff. Mostly the megacorporations.

This is perhaps the ultimate red herring here

No, the red herring is in the supposition that the only reason anybody objects is because they are pro-piracy. That is the most egregious lie of all.

It holds back search engines only in the same way that filtering out child porn does

No, it holds back search engines in the same way that keyword filtering does.

If the average citizen can't easily find the pirated goods, maybe they won't pirate.

The average citizen who pirates is not doing it by using Google anyway, so it will have exactly no effect on them.

Re: I have said it once

WHAT !!!! "no industry should ever have to act in the protectionist interests of another "

BULLSHIT,, EVERYONE INDUSTRY HAS to act that way !!!! you're saying if you are an 'industry' you can do what you want ?? clearly that is stupid, moronic as well as incorrect.

You people must have such a slight grip on reality, it's a wonder that you can actually function in a society..

should the car industry be safe guard the interests of pedestrians ? or others car industry interests, or the fuel industry ?, or the Governments attempts to create the required infrastructure for roads and such ??

sorry Zakida, you need to go back to school or something.. somehow get a clue.. (btw; you wont learn anything from Masnick)

Re: Re:

What I think about all this

Personally, I think that this might have a chance of backfiring on the RIAA/MPAA. If you currently Google something involving downloads or some such, you'll get access to such sites very easily, more often than not on the first page. But when people share links with each other, they (or at least, the people I communicate with) generally send direct links to the content rather than a Google search result. And when I search for a torrent, generally I do it on either the torrent site's search engine or on a site that searches through torrent sites, not Google. When a site gets DMCA'd to extinction from the Google search pages, it might make it even more difficult to find that site itself when scouring for infringing websites.

What this could possibly lead to is a bunch of small, 'underground' file-sharing sites where people send links to their files/content on these sites - but the sites themselves are nowhere to be seen on Google using most conventional search terms due to receiving many DMCA notices for copyright infringement. And meanwhile, these sites become more and more popular (due to the spreading around of links between people even though you can't see them via Google), even though 99% of Google searches wouldn't return even a passing reference to this site. Or, at least, that's how I see things playing out - I've come across many video sites where people uploaded blatantly copyrighted content that they can't on YouTube, and they never, ever get taken down because they're relatively unknown/foreign/difficult to find/etc.

Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

bob, I am not paying repeatedly for something, I am not allowing you or anybody to intercept my communications so you can feel safe, I am not granting you a monopoly for life plus 95 years so you can sell those rights to others so they can seat comfortably extracting rent for work done decades ago and go threatening everybody else with lawsuits, I am not respecting copyrights so it can be used to censor speech or undermine one of the foundations of humanity and that is sharing, I am not abiding by laws that criminalize people sharing anything even if that reduces sales for you.

Short version: Talk all you want, say what you want, I still not giving you a dime.

Re: Re:

The only freetard are IP extremists that want freely granted govt. established monopoly privileges, something provided for by the government at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of my rights, in exchange for nothing. You want these privileges for free.

It is my every right to freely copy as I please with impunity and anyone that wants the free privilege of preventing me from doing so is a freetard.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

" If the average citizen can't easily find the pirated goods, maybe they won't pirate."

As even the MPAA acknowledges, most file sharing occurs through sneakernet platforms, ie: hard drive to hard drive copies. This will do very little to stop infringement.

This isn't intended to stop infringement, it's intended to stop competition. Outside of the Internet our corrupt laws have done exactly this, through wrongfully granted govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies and through ridiculous IP laws with a one sided penalty structure that deters restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers (and that even deters bakeries from allowing children to paint custom drawings on their birthday cakes). These laws harm the artists and the public and they only help the parasite and artificially needed, otherwise useless, middlemen. Just like every other anti-competitive law, from govt. established taxicab monopolies to govt established electricity delivery monopolies, the laws are only designed to advance plutocracy. This needs to change. Abolish govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopoly privileges. Abolish govt. established taxicab monopolies. and abolish IP. End the plutocracy. These laws harm invention, innovation, and economic output. They harm the public.

Re: Not in my best interests

I can't explain why, but somehow I've personally never cared much for DDG as a search engine. I've been using Ixquick (ixquick.com) for a couple of years and have never missed google.

But good on ya for making the wise switch anyway! DDG has the added advantage (like ixquick) of not logging/tracking the user searches. Anytime anyone asks about a google alternative, I always point them at DDG & Ixquick.

Re:

Hmm, I'm not sure you've gained much by moving to Bing. As a Microsoft tool, they're really just as evil as google. They are just slightly less powerful - or rather just as powerful but in a different way. Ultimately the difference between Google & Bing is like the difference between Republicans & Democrats - there is no bloody difference!

So yeah, I'd highly recommend checking out DuckDuckGo or my personal choice, Ixquick. They both fight evil by not logging or tracking your IP address, so there's no data for the 'authorities' to demand.

We all make up the internet, so we all need to do what we can to keep the web open and free! /rant

Re: Re: Re:

There are no monopolies. You are free to make your own new music and movies and sell them - or give them away, as you see fit.

A monopoly would stop you from doing this. Clearly, there is no monopoly. There is ownership of rights for a period, but no more of a monopoly than a lease on an apartment giving you a monopoly on housing.

Re: Re: Re: Not in my best interests

I hear you, big time. Google is hard to get away from. They've got some damn slick products and it's hard to find alternatives that are as easy to use and as comprehensive as what google offers.

You know why that is though? They've got all that locked up in patents. The entire web is becoming enslaved to google because of their anticompetitive behaviour.

Gmail is awesome, becuase of the tagging and threading of discussions. Why haven't we seen anyone else do this? Patents. (MS has tried rebooting this with outloook.com, but they'll always be second fiddle, and they're still MS)

I'm going to have to go out on a limb here to say Google's search results no longer return me what I'm looking for and it hasn't for several years now.

I find it rather disheartening every search I do has to list me links to someone selling me something. I can't seem to type anything for basic information without having a "YOU NEED TO BUY FROM ME!" link thrown in my face.

If Google really cared about users, they'd have two search engines: one which leads us to retailers and one which leads us to information.

Re: Re: Wrong, this is in the best interests of many users!

You have a good point that's worth emphasizing:

No, bob. People like you are obviously looking for something you shouldn't be if all you're finding is pirate sites. Know how I know? I just searched for "dark knight rises". Know what I found? Nothing but legal and legitimate sites listing information on the movie, show times, where to purchase tickets to showings, etc. If you're finding "pirate sites" it's because you want to find them.

If I want to look for legit paid sources I will use the appropriate search terms. Except that if I look for a place to buy the digital copy, DRM free and for a sane price there are no results.

Re: Re: I have said it once

should the car industry be safe guard the interests of pedestrians ? or others car industry interests, or the fuel industry ?, or the Governments attempts to create the required infrastructure for roads and such ??

Bad example. It could be more like "Should car makers and road builders implement speed locks just because some drivers might speed using their products?" or "Should the car makers produce cars that use shitloads of fuel just to please the petrol industry?" and stuff like that. We can go with other flawed analogies too but cars seems to be the top trolling choice ;)

Re: Re: Re:

O puh-lease, our lives have been much much more difficult and it was much harder to find good sources of pirated content in the past and we still pirated a whole freakin lot.

Oh and much like ppl would get discouraged to go for pirate sources if they take too long to find I'm fairly sure this will not automagically make them buy legit content. Hadopi is there to prove it, the celebrated increase in sales was coincidental with heavy marketing strategy from Apple for instance. Fail much?

Captain Overreaction

I don't know Mike. It seems like you hail every little non left leaning move by anyone as the end of the free world.

You're like the journalist who cried wolf.

Fact is, I agree with you in large part on most of your points. The difference is that I don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't see how the YouTube of the future would never be. Googles algorithms tend to be pretty darn smart. If they say that DMCA takedown requests are not the only parameter, I'm sure that's true.

Remember that Google doesn't have a vested interest in tampering with these search results. It's one thing for you to waive a disapproving finger at the RIAA and MPAA...but Google?

This seems like a good faith attempt at combating piracy. I think the point is that you're a copyright abolitionist and feel that IPR shouldn't exist. If so, then no action by Googe or anyone else will satisfy you. I would imagine the only thing that would truly satisfy you (or if I'm mischaracterizing you I'm sorry- those of the ilk to which I am referring) would be the repeal of the American Copyright Act (and amendments). Hell, let's repeal Patent and trademark laws too! then people could rip off your invention AND use your companies name on the product, all capped off with a plagiarized jingle for the commercial.

You have to understand that this is all coming from someone who is more liberal on copyright issues than most. I'm all for a proper balance between user rights and the copyright holders interests. BALANCED. That means a robust fair use provision (and case law). It means well defined and not unduly strict TPM anti-circumvention exceptions.

What it doesn't mean is stomping my feet every time someone so much as whispers a word in support for IPR.

I feel that too often the copyright saga is framed as a war. IT'S NOT A WAR. It's a symbiotic relationship. I admit that the symbiosis is disturbed, broken even...But it isn't a war between consumers and the content industry. It's a relationship that needs some serious work. A little couples counsellings if you will.

A bit of moderation would do your perspective good. Furthermore, it would reveal that the question of copyright and its place in the digital arena is more nuanced than anyone on TorrentFreak (and you, Mike) would have people believe...

Captain Overreaction

I don't know Mike. It seems like you hail every little non left leaning move by anyone as the end of the free world.

You're like the journalist who cried wolf.

Fact is, I agree with you in large part on most of your points. The difference is that I don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't see how the YouTube of the future would never be. Googles algorithms tend to be pretty darn smart. If they say that DMCA takedown requests are not the only parameter, I'm sure that's true.

Remember that Google doesn't have a vested interest in tampering with these search results. It's one thing for you to waive a disapproving finger at the RIAA and MPAA...but Google?

This seems like a good faith attempt at combating piracy. I think the point is that you're a copyright abolitionist and feel that IPR shouldn't exist. If so, then no action by Googe or anyone else will satisfy you. I would imagine the only thing that would truly satisfy you (or if I'm mischaracterizing you I'm sorry- those of the ilk to which I am referring) would be the repeal of the American Copyright Act (and amendments). Hell, let's repeal Patent and trademark laws too! then people could rip off your invention AND use your companies name on the product, all capped off with a plagiarized jingle for the commercial.

You have to understand that this is all coming from someone who is more liberal on copyright issues than most. I'm all for a proper balance between user rights and the copyright holders interests. BALANCED. That means a robust fair use provision (and case law). It means well defined and not unduly strict TPM anti-circumvention exceptions.

What it doesn't mean is stomping my feet every time someone so much as whispers a word in support for IPR.

I feel that too often the copyright saga is framed as a war. IT'S NOT A WAR. It's a symbiotic relationship. I admit that the symbiosis is disturbed, broken even...But it isn't a war between consumers and the content industry. It's a relationship that needs some serious work. A little couples counsellings if you will.

A bit of moderation would do your perspective good. Furthermore, it would reveal that the question of copyright and its place in the digital arena is more nuanced than anyone on TorrentFreak (and you, Mike) would have people believe...

Search Engine Censorship

If you click on my username it will take you to a subreddit where you can learn about and report search engine censorship which is when search engines such as Google remove webpages because of their political/social and economic content.

Poor argumentation

Reasons 1, 2, and 3 are redundant: they are all just variations on the slippery slope argument, which is a pretty poor argument (just go to the intended place on the so-called 'slope' and stand there, don't move -- problem solved), so it wasn't particularly wise to repeat three times right off the top. The other points are better but the first three: weak. Kitchen sinking is not the best debating strategy, since your opponent will always focus (probably exclusively) on the one thing you say that is least persuasive.